Re: Patching GNOME

[Ali Abdin <ALIABDIN aucegypt edu>]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Kevin D. Knerr, Sr. wrote:

> <Britney>
> Oops, we've done it again . . .
> </Britney>
> 
> Two days off in a row, happy happy joy joy, I'm compiling all those
> latest nifty releases, except . . .
> 
> Compiling gnome-core-1.2.3 *fails* because we're missing a PNG pixmap.
> 
> I know I raised this issue a few months back--and probably for most
> folks it's probably a moot point since they're installing Helix
> code--but has anyone given any thought on how we should handle patching
> sources when we're including new or updated *binary* files?
> 
> Granted, I was able to use Bonsai & LXR to drill through the CVS tree to
> grab the needed file, but that's not, in and of itself, a solution. I'd
> like to offer 2 possibilities and throw them out for discussion.
> 
> 1) When making a diff archive available in conjuntion with a new
>  version release, if any binary files (particularly PNGs) are updated or
>  added, they should be made available in a parallel binaries archive.
>  For example:
>     gnome-core-1.2.2.1-1.2.3.diff.tar.gz
>     gnome-core-1.2.2.1-1.2.3.bins.tar.gz
>     gnome-core-1.2.3.tar.gz
>  PROs: If handled correctly, makes it *very* easy to update, since you
>  simply patch from within the parent, then untar the bins "patch"
>  withing the same parent.
>  CONs: Might be confused with a "binary" distribution. May require manual
>  compilation and therefore be spotty at best.
> 
> 2) When releasing a diff archive, include an html file with links (via
>  the html CVS repository) to all new & updated binaries).
>  CONs: Places the burden to obtain the files on the user.
>  PROs: This can probably be generated from a script, so will be easier to
>  prepare & maintain. Plus, if multiple files are affected, they'll all be
>  in the list, so the user will make only one "trip" to DL the needed
>  files, instead of several as compilation breaks at each point.
> 
> Any other ideas? Pros or cons I missed?

Yes - we should use 'xdeltas' instead of patches...The wonderful xdelta 
program allows you to create 'binary diffs' (exactly for this kind of 
purpose). 

I remember Miguel expressed interest and asked me to mail Martin, I 
mail'd Martin and he told me that he is very interested and would take a 
look.

 
> Let's face it, binary distributions are great for users, but the bottom
> line in Free Software is still source code. If only for those who create
> the binary distributions and those who *must* compile from source
> becasue no binary distribution is available, I feel we should correct
> this (occasionally) glaring issue.
> 
> 'Course, it would be nice for Slackers like me, as well.
> 
> OTOH, we *could* abandon PNG and go back to using XPM, which has the
> virtue of *being* source code . . . nah--I didn't think so. ;-)
> 
> Barthel
> -- 
>    ld_barthel yahoo com | http://geocities.com/Area51/Shire/4063
>        Organization: The Pennswald Group -- Linux powered!!
> gpg fingerprint: 8D3F 4BFF D36B BFCC FEE5  86A0 2AAF D3DA C395 641E
> 
> IBM: I Built Mine.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-list mailing list
> gnome-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-list
>